OTC 21382

Marginal Fields: Technology Enables Profitability / Marginal Fields and

their Challenges
Samuel HUSY - Total S.A.

Copyright 2011, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 25 May 2011.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
The number of small and widely dispersed reservoirs is increasing. Development architectures and technologies traditionally
applied to "elephants" may not be economical in the case of marginal fields.
Marginal fields can be produced either by tie-back to existing facilities, or in a stand-alone scheme in which case joint
development of several marginal fields could be considered. The tie-back option reduces the initial investment but the
maximum tie-back distance is constrained by the Reservoir and Fluid properties, implying flow assurance difficulties on long
distances. Typical distances are up to 50 km for oil and more for gas. Standardization and minimization of the amount of
equipment and flowlines are required to reach the cost target. For the stand-alone oil case, it must be assumed that tie-back to
existing facilities is not feasible: on grounds of too long distance not compatible with flow-assurance constraints or lack of
spare capacity at the host and no possibility of debottlenecking.

The main technical challenges for tie-back of marginal fields will be: flow assurance, wax/hydrate/sand management and
appropriate artificial lift to boost the production. Preservation, start-up and sometimes pigging are also key issues.
New technologies may offer answers to such challenges:
electrical heating will enable long distance single line tie-backs
gas/liquid separation facilitates hydrate and slug management and topside debottlenecking, while accelerating the
flow rates
subsea pumping allows longer tie-backs and increases production rate
all-electric subsea systems reduce umbilical costs.
This paper will first review the limits of these technologies and examine the influence of the key parameters on the overall
cost compared to standard architecture. It will suggest some rules for selecting subsea architecture and look at how new
technologies could address some of the challenges mentioned above. The challenges for stand-alone case are completely
different than for an extended tie-back and will not be covered in this paper.

Introduction

While the large reservoirs in the deep offshore are being produced or developed, the number of smaller and widely dispersed
reservoirs is increasing. In West Africa and the Gulf of Mexico, many developments are planned over the next 4 or 5 years in
waters deeper than 1000 meters. Smaller reservoirs raise new technical challenges, as their reserves often do not justify a
development on a stand-alone basis. Development architectures and technologies traditionally applied to "elephants" may not
be economical for marginal fields.
Marginal fields can be produced either as a tie-back to existing facilities, or combined with others in a joint (stand-alone)
development. The tie-back option reduces the initial investment but its maximum distance is constrained by the Reservoir and
Fluid properties, implying flow assurance difficulties on long tie-backs. The constraints with the extended tie-backs are: more
demanding thermal requirements, extra boosting requirements, flow control issues and long transients operations.
Typical distances to be considered are up to 50 km for oil and longer for gas. To reach them, the flow assurance issues have
to be mitigated. The reservoir burial may be low, with low temperatures and low pressures at the wellhead. The oil
characteristics may be difficult with high viscosity or wax content making the flow assurance more critical. Preservation,
2 OTC 21382

start-up and sometimes pigging are also key issues. Host facility integration constraints will also be decisive for the
feasibility of subsea tie-backs.
New technologies are therefore needed to boost the production but also to simplify the subsea architecture. Standardization
and minimization of the amount of equipment and flowlines will contribute to reaching an acceptable level of cost.
Conceptual screening studies are essential in order to select the best adapted, most cost effective architecture.
Among the technologies that may offer answers to such challenges, we will address:
electrical pipeline heating
gas/liquid separation
subsea pumping
all-electric subsea systems.

Review of the technologies available for subsea tie-back to an existing host

The most natural option to look at for the development of marginal reservoirs is tie-back to an existing host facility. Several
subsea architectures are studied at the conceptual screening.

Concerning the flowline architecture, several concepts can be considered for oil production:
With the conventional loop, which has the greatest operating flexibility, production from one or two reservoirs is split into 2
lines of the same diameter and connected to the same manifolds. During a shutdown, dead oil is circulated in both lines to
displace the live oil. The drawbacks of this option are:
the thermal requirements for preservation and consequently the time allocated for dead oil circulation, limiting the
maximum tie-back distance (20/25 km depending on the water depth),
the cost of the 2 insulated lines over a long distance is higher than the cost using a single-line concept.

Fig 1: Conventional loop

With the hybrid loop, a single insulated production line of larger diameter is associated with a non-insulated service line. This
option extends the maximum allowable tie-back reach and saves costs on the flowline. But the tie-back distance will still
have a limit (30/35km), and boosting may be required, depending on reservoir pressure, seabed profile and fluid
characteristics.

Fig 2: Hybrid loop

OTC 21382 3

Single-line concepts are even cheaper and permit extended tie-back distances: either single, heated flowline or single flowline
with Gas/Liquid separation.
The Single Heated Flowline

Fig 3: Single Heated Flowline Architecture

Thermal management is a key issue in long tie-backs, and the use of heating can be considered as an alternative to fluid
circulation or chemical injection for preservation purposes. The cost advantage is that it saves one flowline and one riser, plus
the dead oil circulation pump if capacity is not available at the host.
This configuration consists in heating a single production line, for one of several possible operating modes:
steady-state production flow temperature maintenance,
short shutdown fluid temperature maintenance (preservation procedure),
start-up.

Several technologies are currently under development or already field-proven for preservation and remediation: Direct
Electrical Heating, Heat tracing with Pipe in Pipe, Hot Water Circulation...
The main limitations center on power requirements, voltage level, reliability, energy efficiency or installation constraints.
The Direct Electrical Heating technology produces heat using induction effect with electrical current in the flowline wall pipe
itself. In the wet pipeline architecture, the flowline is insulated with foam, and the alternative current passes first through the
pipeline wall and is returned in an important part in a piggy back electrical cable installed above the flowline. In a Pipe in
Pipe DEH architecture, the flowline is manufactured with a second pipe around the insulation and the return current uses the
outer pipe.
Heat tracing Pipe-In-Pipe (PiP) technology successfully passed Total internal evaluation and qualification process and has
been selected for installation on a 6-km single-flowline tie-back from Islay (Gas reservoir 120m WD) to Forvie manifold in
UK (North Sea). The specific feature of active heat tracing technology is that it provides heat by individual heat trace wires
located directly on the external wall of the inner pipe, below an insulating material. The heat traces are grouped by 3 cables,
fed by 3-phase AC current. Compared to DEH, the heat-traced PiP option is significantly more efficient, close to 90%. This
technology presents the advantage of consuming less power than other heating systems and therefore minimizes the impact
on the host. Thanks to the high insulation afforded by the PiP line and depending on the flow regime, a power range from 7 to
30 W/m would be sufficient. Temperature can be maintained with very low power consumption and can be used after long,
planned shutdowns to heat the system and shorten the start-up sequence.
The Heat Trace PiP is now qualified for North Sea applications such as the Islay field. However, the heat traced pipe-in-pipe
line requires further development to confirm its installation procedure in deeper water. The preservation of discontinuities
such as jumpers and connection spools is also an issue to be addressed.

The single flowline with Gas/Liquid separation

The single line brings the production fluid to the subsea Gas/Liquid separator from which the gas and liquid effluents are sent
to the surface processing unit through different lines. The gas moves up naturally, while the liquids are pumped to the
surface. Gas/Liquid separation combined with liquid pumping offers a clear advantage for heavy oil, low gas fraction and low
reservoir pressure tie-back applications. It will provide the energy boost required to reach the topsides and to maintain a
higher production rate. It will mitigate difficult host integration where extra power or gas compression capacity is reduced.
Gas/liquid separation is a key enabler of flow assurance. Through optimum separator design, it can deal with slugging and
mitigate the risk of hydrates by decreasing the pressure in the separator. Depressurization of the system will be the chosen
preservation measure (Ref: Van Khoi Vu 2009).
4 OTC 21382

Fig 4: Gas/Liquid Separation Architecture

The most beneficial location of the Gas/Liquid separation will be at the riser base where it will reduce the cost of both the
flowlines and the umbilical for power transmission. Here are the main benefits indentified for the subsea G/L separation
concept applied to marginal field tie-back:
On the flowlines, umbilicals and risers:
shorter overall flowline length, no pigging loops,
reduced insulation requirements on the flowline due to less stringent cooldown requirements and lower methanol
demand. For tie-back distances longer than 25 km, the required OHTC (Overall Heat Tranfer Coefficient) will still
be low, requiring PiP technology. The CAPEX gain will be lower than for a wet pipe, but the G/L separation
concept will be an enabler for a 50-km tie-back,
cheaper risers by elimination of the gas-lift and the loop.
On the Host:
no specific compression capacity requirement (gas-lift unnecessary),
no requirement for dead oil circulation (pump + heaters),
smaller capacity required on the first stage separator,
lower global power requirements (compared with RBGL + MPP) due to the overall better efficiency of the artificial
lifting means.

The subsea separation concept was selected for the Pazflor project (Angola) (Ref: L. Bon 2009). During the qualification
program implemented for Pazflor, Total has worked on some of the main issues related to the subsea separation ie
separation efficiency and solids handling. Several tests were run to verify the separation efficiency and the internals
performance, and to confirm that no sand would accumulate in the separator. The main limitation of the vessel separator
concept is the water depth, due to manufacturing restrictions as to the maximum thickness of the separator wall.

More generally, subsea separation system efficiency and maintainability will improve and lead to more compact solutions.
Separator solutions will evolve and improve as the industry gains experience. Building on Pazflor experience and operability,
Total is now working with contractors on other technologies to address reservoirs in deeper water depths: multipipe
separation (Saipem), Inline separation, etc
OTC 21382 5

Sand management and pigging:

The main drawback of the 2 concepts above is the impossibility of routine circulation in the single line, thereby ruling out
regular pigging to clean the line. Sand production must be avoided or properly addressed. For non-regular or inspection
pigging, a subsea pig launcher may be considered but its operability in very deep water will require specific attention.

Subsea Pumping
Subsea polyphasic pumping has developed considerably over the last few years and caught up with the requirements of
higher delta P and higher Gas Volume Fraction (GVF) operating ranges. Several types of technologies are available on the
market:

Pump Technology Nominal GVF

Electric Submersible Pumps (ESP). 0-20%
Helico-axial pumps 0-5% Liquid; 0-20% Hybrid; 0-60% MPP
Twin Screw Pump 0-95%

Electric Submersible Pumps (ESP) are already well known and used downhole in wells or more recently, as deployed by
Petrobras, in a caisson with service vessels (Ref: Euphemio 2009).
Twin Screw Pump is also a common technology for topsides equipment but has a limited history subsea. It is currently
qualified up to 50 bars deltaP. R&D / qualifications are ongoing to increase the operating range.
Helico-Axial Pumps are now qualified for a wide range of deltaP and GVF. The hybrid pumps, able to handle 15% GVF on a
base case, will be used by Total on the Pazflor project downstream of the separator. Multiphase pumps (MPP) will have a
wider operating window in terms of GVF (up to 60% GVF) with a minimum deltaP of 160 bars. Total has proceeded through
an extensive qualification program and will be implementing MPP technology on the CLOV project and is currently
investigating it for other fields. The recent development of the High Boost MPP, with 160 bars minimum deltaP, will be more
attractive in comparison to the hybrid pump combined with G/L separation. However, the hybrid pumps are more efficient
and will have the advantage of a higher flowrate for the same power range. They will also be able to reach a higher deltaP, of
the order of 210 bars.
Such technologies are of great interest for marginal field tie-backs when the oil is viscous and reservoir pressure is low.

All-electric Subsea Systems

For a given reservoir, the cost per barrel increases with the tie-back distance. We need to maintain development costs as low
as possible and reliability high. All-electric subsea systems combine cost reduction and high reliability. The gain on the
umbilical will be achieved by removing the hydraulic lines (LP/HP/return), which will reduce the cross-section. The gain on
reliability is attained with the use of fully redundant electric actuators that maximize production availability.
All-electric and fiber-optical solutions will enable expandability, plug and play control, high bandwith and transparent
connectivity. (Ref: E. Rambaldi, R. Mackenzie 2010).
Obsolescence can be a problem. Introducing all-electric control commands and fiber optics will improve the interface
between the systems. It will also be possible to upgrade software or change equipment operating parameters safely.
Thus, the challenges of remoteness and reliability will soon be mastered.

For several years now, Total has been focusing on the development and qualification of all-electric subsea control systems. It
has learnt a great deal and gained experience on many Total projects: the all-electric trees on the K5F gas field, which have
been producing highly reliably for 18 months; the subsea separation on the Pazflor Project and the adoption as a base case of
Fiber-Optic control system architecture on any new development. Two technology suppliers provide all-electric components:
Cameron and FMC.
The electrical DownHole Safety Valve is at the end of the qualification process and will permit the development of a all-
electric package for subsea control systems.
6 OTC 21382

Summary of the technologies applicable to Long Tie-backs

Electrical Heating High thermal performance enabler

Wells Longer tie-backs facilitator
Hydrate prevention
Electrical heating
To topside
facilities Wax deposit prevention
Manifold

Gas/ Liquid separation Increased flow rates

Topsides
Lower well head pressure
Longer tie-backs
Fewer pipes (CAPEX)
Debottlenecking of topsides facilities

Production wells

Gas/Liquid
Manages slugs
Manifold
separator
Hydrate prevention: Gas and liquid in separate
Liquid pump
lines
*The pump can be single-phase or hybrid.

Subsea Multiphase pumping Longer tie-backs

Topsides Lower well head pressure
Higher production rate and recovery
Production wells
Lower CAPEX on topsides equipment and
pipelines
Enables production from low-pressure
Manifold reservoirs
MPP

All-Electric Subsea Systems Longer tie-backs

Topsides Fewer Chemicals
Lower CAPEX on umbilicals
Production
Interoperability
Improved Reliability
Electrical
Actuation and
Controls Mani-
fold No Hydraulic
OTC 21382 7

Conclusions
Within a few years, the oil and gas industry has succeeded in unlocking a number of new technologies. Some of them are
already being tested in operation. Others are fully qualified and will be used shortly. In any case, the solutions are there,
available like building blocks for the different architecture developments. In addition, some other technologies, such as
subsea water filtration, are still at the R&D stage and will complement in the future our development toolbox. They will
bring new opportunities to cost cutting and / or address reservoirs / fluids more and more challenging. For marginal field
developments, innovation has been, is and will continue to be the key to gardening around our producing fields. In parallel to
using some advanced technology, a high level of equipment reliability will be required, in particular moving to single-line
concepts, subsea processing or in the stand-alone case simplification. It will be achieved if we learn from our successes and
our mistakes, representing a continuous improvement on the industry standards.

References

Louis Bon, Total E&P Angola Pazflor, A World Technology First in Deep Offshore Development. SPE 123787
Aberdeen September 2009.

M-K. Decrin, E. Sibaud, S. Anres Saipem SA, L. Rivire Total SA - Innovative flow assurance strategies for long tie-
back developments in deep waters . DOT Amsterdam Dec 2010

Euphemio, M.L.L., Petrobras; Kuchpil, Cssio, Petrobras; Figueiredo, M.W., Petrobras - Subsea Processing and Boosting -
Building Blocks for PETROBRAS Scenarios. OTC 20186 Houston May 2009

Eric Rambaldi and Rory Mackenzie, Total Deepwater Developments Challenges from an operator point of view: The
essential combination of existing field experience with innovation and new technologies. SPE 132288 Beijing June 2010.

Edouard Thibaut, Eric Meyer, Eric Rambaldi, Total Exploration & Production Electrical transmission and distribution
architectures for subsea processing systems. OTC 20483 Houston May 2010.

Van Khoi Vu, Total; Rune Fantoft, CDS Engineering; Chris Shaw and Henning Gruehagen, FMC Technologies
Comparison of Subsea Separation Systems. OTC 20080 Houston May 2009.